Dana Loesch is also an “editor” at breitbart.com, although I’m not sure what kind of editing she actually does; the site is full of typos, bad grammar, and factual problems, rarely if ever corrected. Chris Loesch is lashing out on his wife’s behalf because Soledad O’Brien embarrassed the Breitbrats by mocking their absurd “Huggate” non-story.

As a result, the full might of breitbart.com has been unleashed against Soledad O’Brien; they’ve published more than a dozen hit pieces on her since Joel Pollak’s disastrous interview. Tremble before their wrath.

This isn’t an unusual level of vitriol for the Loeschs, though; when I criticized Dana Loesch for comparing mandatory transvaginal ultrasound procedures to having sex, she responded by calling me a child molester.

In her syndicated column today (at NewsBusters; at her home blog), Michelle Malkin runs down how CNN news anchor Soledad O'Brien has an affinity for the work of the late Harvard Professor Derrick Bell, particularly his "critical race theory" (CRT) that she has to this point not disclosed to her CNN viewers.

[...]

We should not at all be surprised that O'Brien is Derrick Bell's BFF, or that she continues to obfuscate, conceal, and falsely present the inherent racism in Bell's CRT and Wright's preaching both at TUCC and since his departure. We should also not be surprised that her obvious lack of objectivity does not seem to trouble CNN in the least.

So because he's that makes her anti-semitic? Isn't this THE EXACT SAME thought pattern these complain about leftists (in their heads) having in regards to Obama and how they imagine we call anyone who disagrees with him a racist?

You'd think Santorum would want to butter up Puerto Ricans a bit more deftly, given the fact that Mitt Romney's victories in American Samoa and Hawaii last night actually won him more delegates than Santorum grabbed with his Alabama and Mississippi wins. Yet according to Reuters, Santorum told El Vocero, a local newspaper, "Like any other state, there has to be compliance with this and any other federal law ... And that is that English has to be the principal language. There are other states with more than one language such as Hawaii but to be a state of the United States, English has to be the principal language."

As Reuters helpfully points out, there actually isn't a federal law mandating English as the national language, though some states have chosen to pass one themselves. Putting aside the fact that Santorum made a mistake, he also seems rather unstrategic in a territory in which both English and Spanish are listed as official languages and where people are pretty attached to their Spanish-speaking heritage. Meanwhile, Romney, who's probably very aware the the territory has 20 delegates he can use for his growing lead, had a line we think Puerto Ricans will like a bit more, saying simply that he'd help them if they chose to pursue statehood. Santorum's "English as the national language" issue probably wasn't intended for Puerto Rican newspaper readers though, as it tends to play well among the more culturally conservative voters he's reaching for these days. It may have seemed like a gaffe, but maybe it was a strategic one -- or maybe he's already thinking ahead to the general election.

Is this because Pollak is Jewish? I'm not getting what the accusation is even based on.

Pollak inferred he was being called a racist by a panel member, CRT has a problem explaining successful minorities and Jews are a successful minority, therefore Bell, as the originator of CRT, is anti-semetic and through the ever-so-useful guilt by association, and because O'Brien is a fan of Bell, she's an anti-semite who used reverse-racism to call Pollak a racist.

Pollak inferred he was being called a racist by a panel member, CRT has a problem explaining successful minorities and Jews are a successful minority, therefore Bell, as the originator of CRT, is anti-semetic and through the ever-so-useful guilt by association, and because O'Brien is a fan of Bell, she's an anti-semite who used reverse-racism to call Pollak a racist.

This delegate thing confuses the hell out of me. I guess it varies from place to place. But I heard that Ron Paul won one of the Virgin Islands by 3% of the vote but still didn't get a majority of the delegates. And now Santorum won 2 big states and Mitt still got more delegates then he did by winning a territory and the Obama Islands?

This delegate thing confuses the hell out of me. I guess it varies from place to place. But I heard that Ron Paul won one of the Virgin Islands by 3% of the vote but still didn't get a majority of the delegates. And now Santorum won 2 big states and Mitt still got more delegates then he did by winning a territory and the Obama Islands?

American Samoa has 237 million textile workers not subject to minimum wage laws.

Thing is, one of the people stoking this faux outrage is Michelle Malkin (and thus less wingnuts are jumping on the bandwagon her train is pulling). I suspect Malking jumps on these things because she is well aware of how hot-button issues or race, origins, and nationality are.

From Malkin's piece today:

[...]

Turns out that O'Brien, a Harvard grad, has a rather emotional connection to Bell. As documented at my new Twitter curation/aggregation site Twitchy.com, O'Brien tweeted that it was a "rough day" for her when Bell passed away last fall. She wrote that she had "just started re-reading" one of his books and mourned again: "RIP Prof. Bell." O'Brien also shared tributes to Bell from fellow Harvard prof and friend of Obama Charles Ogletree. That's the same Professor Ogletree who bragged that he "hid" the Obama/Bell video during the 2008 campaign.

O'Brien failed to disclose her pro-Bell bias to viewers before her segments.

[...]

Well, when Malkin starts disclosing at the top of each of her articles that she is a religiously-whacked-wingnut and that colors all of her views in her columns, then, maybe then, Malkin might start calling out others for their "biases".

I'm trying to understand Pollak's attack on Bell. He says that Space Traders is an anti-semetic novel, but in Space Traders it is the Jewish community that mounts the primary opposition to the sale of American blacks to the aliens. In the novel they form protest rallies and vow to hide blacks in what they argue is a new Holocaust. Their movement is eventually crushed by what are presumably Anglo government officials.

Is Pollak saying that it's an attack on Jews to suggest that they would not sit idly by and watch their fellow citizens sold into slavery to an alien species, to be used for God knows what purpose? Is Pollak saying that it is somehow an insult to suggest that the majority of American Jews have a sense of honor and are guided a fully formed concept of social justice, that they have a self identity formed by the past, one that transcends simply blending in and not making waves? Is Pollak saying that Bell's suggestion that American Jews aren't cowards is somehow anti-semetic?

Since Pollak is himself Jewish, and grew up in Skokie, I'm trying to wrap my head around the mindset that could produce such a warped sense of perception. He seems to honestly think that the idea of his people refusing to stand by and passively watch an unfolding atrocity constitutes an attack on them. The absolute upside down world in which this brand of logic might make sense is one where spinelessness is a virtue and to call someone courageous is an insult.

I'm trying to understand Pollak's attack on Bell. He says that Space Traders is an anti-Semitic novel, but in Space Traders it is the Jewish community that mounts the primary opposition to the sale of American blacks to the aliens. In the novel they form protest rallies and vow to hide blacks in what they argue is a new Holocaust. Their movement is eventually crushed by what are presumably Anglo government officials.

Is Pollak saying that it's an attack on Jews to suggest that they would not sit idly by and watch their fellow citizens sold into slavery to an alien species, to be used for God knows what purpose? Is Pollak saying that it is somehow an insult to suggest that the majority of American Jews have a sense of honor and are guided a fully formed concept of social justice, that they have a self identity formed by the past, one that transcends simply blending in and not making waves? Is Pollak saying that Bell's suggestion that American Jews aren't cowards is somehow anti-Semitic?

Since Pollak is himself Jewish, and grew up in Skokie, I'm trying to wrap my head around the mindset that could produce such a warped sense of perception. He seems to honestly think that the idea of his people refusing to stand by and passively watch an unfolding atrocity constitutes an attack on them. The absolute upside down world in which this brand of logic might make sense is one where spinelessness is a virtue and to call someone courageous is an insult.

I'm one of the most uneducated person in these things, but I see it as:

Blacks=Mentioning Jews=Antisemitism regardless of the story. Full stop.

One of the cool things I read in Bell's book (posted here) was the injustice of painting all blacks as anti-Semitic based on the asshole few, but it really persists.

So because he's that makes her anti-semitic? Isn't this THE EXACT SAME thought pattern these complain about leftists (in their heads) having in regards to Obama and how they imagine we call anyone who disagrees with him a racist?

Derple Standard:

- Liberals* that mention that brown people exist and have had a raw deal are racists who deeply hate brown people. But they also hate white people and plan to enslave them.

Conservatives** that invoke ugly stereotypes of brown people to justify the aforementioned raw deal are bold realists who won't be silenced by politically correct censorship wolves.

- Liberals are automatically antisemites via long-reaching chains of affiliation to somebody who's said something antisemitic...or to somebody who's said something less than glowing about Israel, or hasn't given a tongue bath to the Likud, or has stated an indifference to hamantashen.

Conservatives can attend megachurches where pastors can talk at length about how the Jews killed Jesus, how God sent Hitler to prompt the Jews back to Israel, and invoke conspiracy theories about "international bankers" that control world finance and hate evangelical Protestants; Conservatives also possess perfect discernment of "acceptable" and "unacceptable" Jew-ness, and cannot be faulted for invoking antisemitic tropes versus The Wrong Type of Jew, such as George Soros.

- Liberal women are mutt-ugly, man-hating lesbian killjoys. And also whores that can't keep their legs shut. They're oversensitive about being referred to as whores and lesbians.

Conservative women are beautiful, pristine and possess crystal-pure morality. Their ethics and manners are perfect even when they lie, spew insults, and any bigoted statements they make are especially bold.

- Liberal homosexuals: the men are limp-wristed sexual vampires that dwell in Castle Silling-like enclaves. They crave ass indiscriminately--man, child, dog, it makes no difference. The few hours of the day they don't devote to sexual depravity are spent conspiring to corrupt married straight men. The women are difficult to differentiate from other Liberal women.

There are no Conservative homosexuals: just family men with wide stances who appreciate the chance to closely mentor slender Ganymede-like youths. Conservative lesbians are irrelevant, since the obligation to marry and have sex with men has nothing to do with so-called "preference."

*NB: In the Derple Standard Liberal and Conservative are as much tribal designations as indicators of a governmental philosophy. Indeed, many conservatives are Liberal to the Wingnut Assortment.

The first is that in Space Traders, the statement is made by Jews that they know they'll be next, and that's a reason they're helping. Given that this is the same sentiment as expressed in the "First they came for" poem that gets repeated endlessly, it's hard to see how that's supposed to be a bad thing, rather than a clear-sighted view of the necessity to band together.

The second is the CRT doesn't provide an obvious explanation for the success of some minorities vs others. First of all, the success of Jews is generally overstated-- the Jewish population has a median income of around 50, vs 42K for the average US household, which is hardly OMG territory-- and second other demographic explanations, like where Jews tend to live and that the Jewish population is older than the average tend to explain. Second of all, CRT doesn't discount the ability of a subgroup to achieve, it says that the white establishment is not going to cut them any breaks, which is true.

Is Pollak saying that it is somehow an insult to suggest that the majority of American Jews have a sense of honor and are guided a fully formed concept of social justice, that they have a self identity formed by the past, one that transcends simply blending in and not making waves?

Also another correction, Bell did not write that the majority of Jews took part in protests, only 35,000.

BTW, the latest hot-button anthropology paper I linked downstairs is part of a trend I'm trying to tie into what we see in the current discourse (if I might use that word - it's probably too refined) in American politics and the American media-driven conflicts over issues of race and origins.

As I've mentioned before, I am concerned that current and expected research in anthropology will find a home in a view of humanity that is essentially racist (in the cultural meaning of the term) and will lead to no good.

We as a species are rather poorly defined, it turns out. We are a hodgepodge, and it is now evident that populations within the broader Homo genus have interbred over the past hundreds of thousands of years.

Recently discovered that certain populations in Africa have archaic interbreeding, and that certain south east Asians likewise, and with the possible new discovery of a somewhat differentiated population of humans in Asia from about 11k years ago... well, this is starting to set the stage for what I would consider analogous to the old Sons of Noah theory of why "races" were different, which pops up today in certain creationist circles but was more widespread in the West before modernism.

What this recent blow-up about Bell et. al. show, as if the past 4 years of ODS wasn't enough, is that race is a kindler for heated political "discourse".

Given how Fox and allies have mainstreamed so much of paleo-conservatism, what's left is for the Steve Sailer/Peter Brimelow form of race-segregation. And these guys know too well how to pull out tricks from the anthropologist's locker.

Be ware. Be very aware. I suspect we've not seen all this bottom out yet.

No, the argument - which is not Pollak's own but was made back in 1990s, in NYT's review of this short story, is that it ascribes an ulterior motive to "many Jews" who took part in protests.

NYT reviewer, and some others, including current Bell's enemies, think Bell was implying that the only reason some of the Jews protested the blacks' treatment was their self-interest.

The story itself doesn't say anything like that, of course, although it does leave the door ajar for such an interpretation.

Is the argument here that the Jewish motivation isn't pure altruism per se but an understanding of the lesson in Niemöller's First They Came?

Okay, even if that's true, this only means Bell characterized Jews as both courageous and smart. The kind of people who can read anti-semitism in that are going to read it in tea leaves and the flight of birds, simply because it's their knee jerk, go to accusation.

Yeah I am not seeing anything about Bell that leads me to believe he was Anti-Semitic and I am definitely not seeing Soledad O'Brien as being Anti-Semitic either.

That's because you're demanding a rational standard of proof.

The accusations are being justified via a tribal standard--Bell and O'Brien are automatically guilty because they're not allied with their accusers, and have to prove they're innocent. But the criterion for innocence isn't facts, it's capitulation to the worldview of the accusers.

Beyond being trolling, it's a mimic of the legal theory that governed Soviet era partisan "justice" (predominantly under the prosecutor Vyshinsky iirc).

In addition to racism, some reviewers found my treatment of Jews in Space Traitor anti-Semetic. Daniel Farber and Suzanna Sherry suggest that my bias against Jews is shown in writing that some Jews who supported their anti-trade statement were motivated by concerns that in the absence of blacks, Jews could become the scapegoats for a system so reliant on an identifiable group on whose heads less-well-off whites can discharge their hate and frustrations for societal disabilities about which they are unwilling to confront their leaders. n23 This was, of course, far from my intention. In a lengthy essay review of their book, Cornell Law Professor Kathryn Abrams, criticizes Farber and Sherry for waging a

campaign of guilt-by-association against Derrick Bell... With the exception of a brief section in the introduction, however, Farber and Sherry do not actually mount an argument that Bell holds views that are anti-Semitic... Such associations are simply dropped into paragraphs that are not facially concerned with anti-Semitism.

In summer 1998 issue of University of Chicago Law Review Kathryn Abrams has a lengthy critique of a book by D. Farber and S. Sherry. She touches on their critique of Bell, and specifically allegations of antisemitism:

2. Pervasive claims of anti-Semitism.
These explicit arguments, however, are not the only ways in which Farber and Sherry seek to connect multiculturalism with anti-Semitism. They also seek to bring home the ostensibly anti-Semitic implications of multiculturalism by less direct means. In this respect, their arguments assessing the consequences of multiculturalism descend from the unpersuasive to the deeply disturbing.
The authors wage a campaign of guilt-by-association against Derrick Bell, the originator of the critical race narrative and one of the founders of critical race theory. Bell is criticized for authoring a fictional chronicle in which Jewish protagonists demonstrate mixed motives in seeking to prevent Blacks from being removed by a group of aliens. n35 He is charged with displaying solicitude toward that veritable lightning rod for Black-Jewish tensions, Louis Farrakhan (p 44). With the exception of a brief section in the introduction (p 4), however, Farber and Sherry do not actually mount an argument that Bell holds views that are anti-Semitic. Nor do they argue that Bell--and by inference other multiculturalists--should be regarded as holding views that are anti-Semitic because Bell has written a particular chronicle or displayed solicitude toward Farrakhan. (I would add that I would find either argument unpersuasive, given Bell's actual writings. n36 ) [*1109] [*1110] Such associations are simply dropped into paragraphs that are not facially concerned with anti-Semitism.
Nor are Bell's alleged affiliations the only indirect means the authors use to suggest a connection between multiculturalism and anti-Semitism. Although Farber and Sherry survey a range of social and cultural damages that are alleged to flow from multicultural scholarship, one theme predominates: virtually every harm that is predicted or hypothesized is illustrated by reference to a development or controversy that has victimized Jews. Thus, the tendency toward authoritarianism by those who employ narrative methodology is illustrated by the Dreyfus affair (pp 102-03); the consequence of relativism in the characterization of "truth" in narrative is illustrated by difficulty of challenging Holocaust revisionism (pp 109-10); the tendency of narrative to degrade scholarly discourse is illustrated by an academic battle between two Jews over a Patricia Williams narrative dealing with anti-Semitism (pp 90-94); even Chapter Four, which identifies as a specific drawback of multiculturalism the fostering of arguments that the authors take to be anti-Semitic, ends with a reference to another, implicit connection, a chilling story about the failure to recognize merit in a concentration camp (p 71). n37 The cumulative effect of these connections is to suggest that wherever multiculturalism shows its face, norms or controversies evincing anti-Semitism are not far behind. [*1111]
Finally, Farber and Sherry make the claim, which operates to ratify the preceeding implications, that multiculturalism threatens Jews by challenging the protection conferred upon them by Enlightenment values. The authors cite a series of historical figures, from French counter-revolutionaries to German Romantics to Christian crusaders, who have both challenged Enlightenment premises and displayed variously virulent forms of anti-Semitism. Farber and Sherry then suggest that this connection is not accidental, because Jews have both perpetuated and received protection from Enlightenment values:

Jews have been especially committed to Enlightenment beliefs, and thus have been instrumental in secularizing and universalizing American culture. . . . It is a reciprocal relationship; the Enlightenment focus on intellect and away from pedigree, on achievement rather than biography, on universal rather than local standards of merit, helped to open doors that had previously been closed to Jews (p 71).
Although Farber and Sherry return in the succeeding passage to the particular damage done by the critique of merit, their broader suggestion is that challenges to Enlightenment values threaten to undermine the protection that Jews have received from these values.
I have immediate sympathy with Farber and Sherry's concern about the scourge of anti-Semitism. The atrocities they cite occurred within many of our lifetimes, and snuffed out the lives of millions as an expression of pure racial hatred. These atrocities should be abhorred and remembered, and their repetition prevented. I also have no difficulty with Farber and Sherry's more generalized concern for the well-being of the Jewish people. It is inconsistent, as I will argue, with their emphasis on Enlightenment values, but it is a predictable outgrowth of a group-based conception of self with which I, as both a multiculturalist and a Jew, feel perfectly comfortable. (I received my own introduction to identity politics watching my parents decipher the import of any political development by asking, "But what does it mean for the Jews?"). But the claim that Jews are threatened by the multiculturalists' targeting of Enlightenment norms exceeds this kind of quotidian, group-based concern. Jews have no doubt supported and been supported by the norms of the Enlightenment, though Jews have also been prominent critics of Enlightenment values, particularly as they have been reflected in liberalism and its legal [*1112] manifestations. n38 However, to claim a relationship to the Enlightment of sufficient reciprocity or exclusivity that she who at [*1113] tacks the Enlightenment, in effect, attacks me, seems solipsistic n39 and bizarre. Moreover, the relentless drumbeat of anti-Semitic consequences--explicit, implicit, carefully argued, subliminal--reflects more than a generalized concern with the well-being of Jews. It reflects a suggestion that multiculturalism threatens the equality or well-being of Jews.
This latter claim is disturbing for several reasons. First, the authors' claims of anti-Semitic consequences are among the most attenuated in the book. The problem is not, as Richard Posner argued in an earlier review, that the claim of anti-Semitism is grounded on an effect-based interpretation of discrimination that is more characteristic of the multiculturalists than of Enlightenment scholars. n40 The problem is that the claim of anti-Semitism is not founded on any concrete effects at all. Sometimes Farber and Sherry argue that multiculturalists make logical or analytic moves (for example, the rejection of Enlightenment norms) that are analogous to moves that have been made in some anti-Semitic arguments. More often, they argue that multiculturalism contributes to the kind of intellectual environment in which certain unattractive kinds of arguments, including some anti-Semitic arguments, become more plausible. Even these speculative claims are weakened, as I argue above, by the fact that their central premises are flawed.

Second, beyond the ungrounded character of the allegations, the manner in which they are made seems likely to inflame an already-volatile set of group relations. The last decade has been an extremely precarious time in Black-Jewish relations, given the erosion of the civil rights coalition over some Jews' rejection of affirmative action, the use of anti-Semitic discourse by Farrakhan and some other members of the Nation of Islam, the debates over Jesse Jackson's response to Farrakhan, the Crown Heights inci [*1114] dent, and more. n41 These tensions have affected Jewish relations with other communities of color, in part because many members of these communities experience an affinity with the Palestinians in their struggles with the state of Israel. These tensions are real, and they can be ameliorated, if at all, only through careful, nuanced dialogue about the claims of mistreatment and the bases of disagreement. Broad, speculative arguments such as those made by Farber and Sherry will undoubtedly focus more attention on the debate over multiculturalism, and may perhaps help to consolidate opposition to it. But they will do so at the cost of exacerbating a painful set of divisions, and framing the culture wars as one more site of antagonism between Jews and communities of color. This kind of argument is one that those concerned about the degradation of discourse would do well to reconsider.

The state lawmaker who last year met with Donald Trump to discuss his "birther bill," and who greeted Sheriff Joe Arpaio's investigation into President Barack Obama's birth certificate with a cheer, has managed to revive the birther legislation.

On Wednesday, the Senate Government Reform Committee approved House Bill 2480 on a partyline vote, with Republicans in favor and Democrats opposed.

Seel replaced the language in one of his AHCCCS fraud and waste bills with verbage that would require any candidate for president and vice president of the United States to have their national party submit an affidavit to Arizona's Secretary of State attesting, under penalty of perjury, they are qualified to hold those offices.

One of the requirements for the presidency is that a person be a natural born citizen -- something Seel, R-Phoenix, has long questioned about Obama.

Sen. Judy Burges, R-Sun City West and the original birther backer in the Legislature, said the bill is a shadow of its earlier self because it no longer requires the Secretary of State to certify natural birth and citizenship.

She was among the four Republicans voting "yes" on the bill, along with senators Lori ['little pink gun'] Klein of Anthem, Rick Murphy of Peoria and Steve Smith of Maricopa.

n36 As for Bell's alleged solicitude toward Farrakhan, I am unwilling to perpetuate what I regard as a flawed policy among some Jews of calling on virtually every African-American leader of prominence to disclaim Farrakhan in the face of his anti-Semitic remarks. Farrakhan and some other Nation of Islam leaders, such as Khalid Abdul Muhammed, have made anti-Semitic statements that I reject, and that I believe others, of any racial group, who care about group-based equality should reject. These attitudes, in my mind, make Farrakhan a less fit leader than others who reject anti-Semitism in all its manifestations, and a problematic public representative of the Black community. But I do not believe such attitudes require that Blacks deny the benefits Farrakhan has provided to that community. Black leaders are required to disclaim Farrakhan's anti-Semitism, but no similar requirement is imposed on other groups, many of whom have comparable figures in their own midst. Christians are never called upon to disclaim the anti-Semitism of Pat Buchanan; nor are Jews, for that matter, required to disclaim the racism of Meir Kahane. In this context, the demand that Black leaders disclaim Farrakhan suggests, at the very least, that some Jews are more willing to look for anti-Semitism at the margins of society than within power structures where it can do far more to harm them.
Moreover, Derrick Bell's discussion of Farrakhan (which occurs, ironically, in the context of a discussion of the pressure on Black leaders to disclaim those who make statements deemed "outrageous" by those in power) is complicated. Bell's description of Farrakhan as offering a form of forthright resistance to the white power structure and a form of empowerment to young Blacks that few other leaders have been able to match is in some respects similar that of Cornel West, who is often viewed as a champion of Black-Jewish relations. Compare Bell, Faces at 11825 (cited in note 35), with Cornel West, Black-Jewish Dialogue: Beyond Rootless Universalism and Ethnic Chauvinism, 4:3 Tikkun 95, 96 (1989) ("The state of siege now raging in Black America, the sense of frustration and hopelessness, pushes people to look toward a leader who speaks in bold and defiant terms. The Black elected officials tend not to speak to these deep needs. Farrakhan tries to fill the vacuum . . . ."). And while Bell's discussion contains passages that praise Farrakhan frankly ("Minister Farrakhan, calm, cool, and very much on top of the questions, handles these self-appointed guardians with ease. I love it!"), Bell, Faces at 118 (cited in note 35), he constructs a dialogue that permits the problem of anti-Semitic statements and Black responses to them to be discussed at length, from a number of perspectives, some of which attempt to illustrate how the Jewish anguish over Farrakhan looks to at least some Blacks. This seems to me instructive, particularly if one is willing to acknowledge that this ferment may look different from the perspective of Blacks than from the perspectives of Jews. However, it is not a matter of saying (as Farber and Sherry's worry about relativism might suggest) that Blacks will inevitably view the controversy one way and Jews another. Some of Bell's conclusions seem plausible, even to me, approaching the controversy as (one kind of ) Jew. In one section, for example, Bell states:
Were I a Jew, I would be damned concerned about the latent--and often active--anti-Semitism in this country. But to leap with a vengeance on inflammatory comments by blacks is a misguided effort to vent justified fears on black targets of opportunity who are the society's least powerful influences and--I might add--the most likely to be made the scapegoats for deeply rooted anti-Semitism that they didn't create and that will not be cured by their destruction.
Id at 121. While some of Bell's discussion may be jarring to some Jewish sensibilities (including my own), to suggest that this discussion is anti-Semitic seems incorrect and inflammatory.
I reach similar conclusions about Bell's chronicle of "The Space Traders." It is true, as Farber and Sherry state, that Bell describes a plot of resistance (to the removal of all Blacks by the Space Traders) by Jews calling themselves the "Anne Frank Committee." Though the Committee publicly describes its motives as reflecting "the fateful parallel between the plight of blacks in this country and the situation of the Jews in Nazi Germany," Bell notes that "a concern of many Jews not contained in their official condemnations of the Trade offer, was that, in the absence of blacks, Jews could become the scapegoats for a system . . . reliant on an identifiable group on whose heads less-well-off whites can discharge their hate and frustrations for societal disabilities . . . ." Id at 186. This is not a flattering picture of Jews (who may well have enjoyed, as I did, the first part of the passage, which depicted Jews as taking an atypically strong position against the proposed removal of Black citizens), but it is also not the end of the matter. Jews are described as victims, as well as allies with mixed motives, in the succeeding passage. Here Bell relates a plan engineered by the Attorney General, to prevent a small group of Jews from "besmirching the good names of all patriotic . . . Jews" by blacklisting members of the Anne Frank Committee. Id at 187. Bell states:
Retaliation was quick. Within hours, men and women listed as belonging to the committee lost their jobs; their contracts were canceled; their mortgages foreclosed; and harassment of them, including physical violence, escalated into a nationwide resurgence of anti-Semitic feeling . . . . The Jews who opposed the Trade were intimidated into silence and inaction. The leaders of [the group] were themselves forced into hiding, leaving few able to provide any haven for blacks.
Id. Both the McCarthy-esque strategy, and its consequences, are grotesque, leaving little doubt about the vulnerable status of the Jews. While they are not, of course, the wholly devalued group who become the object of the Space Traders' exchange, Jews live on a precarious edge, which serves at least to contextualize their earlier, somewhat unappealing concern about their own status. Moreover, Jews are not the only ones who display mixed motives in opposing the Trade (business leaders make a hypocritical protest aimed at saving a portion of their market and their work force), nor are they the only ones who engage in a struggle over the scarce territory at the societal margin (the quote about the motives of the Anne Frank Committee makes clear that other marginal groups engaged in scapegoating). One can question why Jews, via this subplot, were held up for particular criticism at all; and one can ask whether this treatment demonstrates the kind of inappropriate focus on those close to the social margins that Bell himself criticized in the case of the Jewish attacks on Farrakhan. But, in the end, this may be a question that distinguishes (some) Jewish perspective(s) from those of an AfricanAmerican author. This is a chronicle about betrayal of Black Americans by the dominant power structure which systematically devalued them, by the legal system whose equality-based precedents were not strong enough to help them, by a variety of groups whose motives were too mixed or whose positions made them too vulnerable to be of much use. While the picture of Jews it presents is not pretty, Jews do not fare conspicuously less well than any other group in this nightmarish account. It does not, to my mind, provide a basis for charging Bell with anti-Semitism.

True, but it would only be distracting if everything else she was wearing was just as busy. With a simple dress like the one she's wearing, a busy necklace works well, especially since it's got complimentary shades of blue going on.

Read the note 36 alone, it is directly relevant to the Space Traders and Farrakhan.

Yep

Black leaders are required to disclaim Farrakhan's anti-Semitism, but no similar requirement is imposed on other groups, many of whom have comparable figures in their own midst. Christians are never called upon to disclaim the anti-Semitism of Pat Buchanan; nor are Jews, for that matter, required to disclaim the racism of Meir Kahane.

I think Bell was mainly concerned with showing the difference between systemic oppression of specific groups and personal reactions to those same groups and in showing how 'the powers that be' which includes Jews as well as members of other minorities can turn against all groups.

Those calling him anti-Semitic are looking at a very narrow portion of what he wrote and characterizing everything he writes as being the same.

Note that in her extremely sympathetic review she also thinks that Bell doesn't present the Jewish defenders of black in ST in the best light. It is thus easy to understand how Bell's detractors would moreso find the description bad.

Hi Lizards! It's a beautiful day Down South...Watching American Idol, Winston is asleep on my lap..I am smiling deep inside. Now that I have a girl friend it seems I am being constantly texted by her and her friends..Nobody calls anybody here.. It's all texting..I get up in the morning there are texts waiting for me..Thou must text before bedtime and all day long. I'm not complaining..It strikes me as funny.

In a filing to a three-judge panel in Washington, Texas asked to submit a petition charging that Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act "exceeds the enumerated powers of Congress and conflicts with Article IV of the Constitution and the Tenth Amendment."

As a state with a history of voter discrimination, Texas is required under that section of the Voting Rights Act to get advance approval of voting changes from either the Justice Department or the U.S. District Court in Washington.

The provision dates from 1965, but was upheld in 2006 after Congress found that discrimination still exists in the areas where it was historically a problem.

Note that in her extremely sympathetic review she also thinks that Bell doesn't present the Jewish defenders of black in ST in the best light. It is thus easy to understand how Bell's detractors would moreso find the description bad.

While they are not, of course, the wholly devalued group who become the object of the Space Traders' exchange, Jews live on a precarious edge, which serves at least to contextualize their earlier, somewhat unappealing concern about their own status.

It's almost like Bell chose not to turn Jews into a simplistic caricature, neither of context free self sacrifice nor of completely craven self interest, but instead chose to represent them as a complex people whose motivations could not be reduced into a single blanket stereotype.

Again, I think the root of the problem is an antipathy towards ambiguity. The attempt to contextualize the Jewish response in anything resembling complex, somewhat realistic terms is only problematic if one thinks that portraying Jews as normal people partially concerned by an understandable thing like their own status is demeaning.

Hi Lizards! It's a beautiful day Down South...Watching American Idol, Winston is asleep on my lap..I am smiling deep inside. Now that I have a girl friend it seems I am being constantly texted by her and her friends..Nobody calls anybody here.. It's all texting..I get up in the morning there are texts waiting for me..Thou must text before bedtime and all day long. I'm not complaining..It strikes me as funny.

Soledad didn't have to say anything. They just make accusations... you know, like Shirley Sherrod hates white people.

In fact, you would have thought that after that little fiasco, and a lawsuit to boot, they would have learned better than to make false accusations about people. But they're monsters, like their dead predecessor.

{{Marj}} It will take flames of righteous indignation to beat back these monsters. Right leaning ladies will need to speak out in magnitude for the dim bulbs to understand.

It just makes me so angry. What they did to Shirley and two innocent, elderly people. And I think you're right, but that's tricky, too. People don't like to stick their necks out in this environment of being called such nasty things.

And in other news, Florida freshman GOP senator Marco Rubio was hospitalized today with a concussion brought on by repeatedly smacking his forehead with the heel of his hand in disbelief after reading Rick Santorum's words.

It just makes me so angry. What they did to Shirley and two innocent, elderly people. And I think you're right, but that's tricky, too. People don't like to stick their necks out in this environment of being called such nasty things.

Hi Lizards! It's a beautiful day Down South...Watching American Idol, Winston is asleep on my lap..I am smiling deep inside. Now that I have a girl friend it seems I am being constantly texted by her and her friends..Nobody calls anybody here.. It's all texting..I get up in the morning there are texts waiting for me..Thou must text before bedtime and all day long. I'm not complaining..It strikes me as funny.

I would have a very hard time restraining the urge to knock that fucker into the next century. That makes my blood boil.

Now, with Texas attempting to murder the Voting Rights Act, can we dispense with the Niceties towards the South, and start attacking in this culture war? Being on the Defense continuously means we can't advance.

Full Disclosure: I met Joel Pollack twice in 2010 when he ran for Congress in Illinois's 9th Congressional District (the district in which I live). At the time I was much impressed by him and he did not show the nuttiness we now see out of him. In 2010 I was proud to have voted for him, now I am not (though even if I knew who he really was, I still would have voted for him over Jan Schakowsky).

It's almost like Bell chose not to turn Jews into a simplistic caricature, neither of context free self sacrifice nor of completely craven self interest, but instead chose to represent them as a complex people whose motivations could not be reduced into a single blanket stereotype.

Again, I think the root of the problem is an antipathy towards ambiguity. The attempt to contextualize the Jewish response in anything resembling complex, somewhat realistic terms is only problematic if one thinks that portraying Jews as normal people partially concerned by an understandable thing like their own status is demeaning.

I think two points are important.

1) Jews were talked about in Space Traders because the parallel to the Holocaust was obvious. The premise of black people being shipped off to an unknown place was a combination of slavery (ships) and being rounded off to be sent away (the Nazi's rounding up Jews) in order to "improve" society. The complex reaction was based on an understanding of the parallel, but also the fear that once blacks were gone, who would be next? Once the most feared and maligned group of people were removed from American society, who would replace them because somebody would. Who would the haters start hating next? Jews, given their history would be contenders. At least that's how I took it when I read the story when I was 15.

2) Most black people do not make distinctions between white ethnic groups. We really don't. A black person who is truly anti-semitic doesn't like any white people. See Louis Farrakhan.

LOL So true..It's a new world with relationships..We both have careers that take lots of time and we get to spend a few days together each week but we text ALOT..She started it..You can't ignore a text from somebody you are falling head over heels with..You answer! It's funny..We never talk on the phone it seems like..It's OK..It's a new world..
There are some advantages.. I know she is going away this weekend to do something for the State of Oklahoma and I don't remember a damn thing about what where and when..Nomally you'd have to listen to shit like you never listen to me.. I told you!
Heck..I got it via text..I'm good to go..I love you baby! LOL

On the very least, it's going to be interesting (and entertaining) what Rubio's reaction will be.

Sen. Marco Rubio is shocked, shocked I tell you, that Republicans are starting to say directly to Latinos what they say about Latinos all of the time to other Republicans!

Seriously, Rubio is a member of a party that constantly goes on about English being made the official language, how terrible it is that Latinos speak Spanish and don't learn English quick enough and that we should get rid of ESL classes in schools. Does he really have a right to be surprised that finally somebody said to their faces what Republicans say all of the time anyway?

This new Page I've just put up is not my usual sort of thing, given how often I've lambasted the New York Times over the years. But this Op-Ed has gotten a good bit of play on the Net, and it does deserve to be read. So, in that spirit of honesty Sergey just referred to:

TODAY is my last day at Goldman Sachs. After almost 12 years at the firm — first as a summer intern while at Stanford, then in New York for 10 years, and now in London — I believe I have worked here long enough to understand the trajectory of its culture, its people and its identity. And I can honestly say that the environment now is as toxic and destructive as I have ever seen it.

To put the problem in the simplest terms, the interests of the client continue to be sidelined in the way the firm operates and thinks about making money. Goldman Sachs is one of the world’s largest and most important investment banks and it is too integral to global finance to continue to act this way. The firm has veered so far from the place I joined right out of college that I can no longer in good conscience say that I identify with what it stands for.

Sen. Marco Rubio is shocked, shocked I tell you, that Republicans are starting to say directly to Latinos what they say about Latinos all of the time to other Republicans!

Seriously, Rubio is a member of a party that constantly goes on about English being made the official language, how terrible it is that Latinos speak Spanish and don't learn English quick enough and that we should get rid of ESL classes in schools. Does he really have a right to be surprised that finally somebody said to their faces what Republicans say all of the time anyway?

If Rubio is embarrassed, he can shove it.

Rubio is in the same boat as Santorum. Catholic theocracy all the way. He won't say anything to risk that VP invitation.

Just asked my Wife how Michelle looked in that dress. She took one look and said pregnant. Don't ask me why. She basically said it wasn't fat because if it was, it would also be showing up in her face as well. Ladies?

Most of that stuff I don't agree with. But on the issue of de-Gerrymandering, you and I are in perfect accord. I hate what both parties have used gerrymandering to do in Illinois, and I want the methods used to redistrict completely overhauled and made politically neutral.

1) Jews were talked about in Space Traders because the parallel to the Holocaust was obvious. The premise of black people being shipped off to an unknown place was a combination of slavery (ships) and being rounded off to be sent away (the Nazi's rounding up Jews) in order to "improve" society. The complex reaction was based on an understanding of the parallel, but also the fear that once blacks were gone, who would be next? Once the most feared and maligned group of people were removed from American society, who would replace them because somebody would. Who would the haters start hating next? Jews, given their history would be contenders. At least that's how I took it when I read the story when I was 15.

2) Most black people do not make distinctions between white ethnic groups. We really don't. A black person who is truly anti-semitic doesn't like any white people. See Louis Farrakhan.

I would have a very hard time restraining the urge to knock that fucker into the next century. That makes my blood boil.

Now, with Texas attempting to murder the Voting Rights Act, can we dispense with the Niceties towards the South, and start attacking in this culture war? Being on the Defense continuously means we can't advance.

Look here, I live in TX as I believe does Jaunte, Shiplord Kirel, Lidane, Austin Blue and I am sure many others on this blog.

Rubio is in the same boat as Santorum. Catholic theocracy all the way. He won't say anything to risk that VP invitation.

He doesn't want the VP nod, I don't think. He's going to hang back this time around, and not risk getting stained by a loss. But he's a very effective politician, and he'll make a big move in time, just not yet.

(The italicized section is a reference, a kind of mild riff on all of the sex stuff we've ended up talking about).

Another part of the ongoing dilemma is that the President surrounded himself with self-proclaimed Marxists, socialists, communists and progressives. Why? Is the answer that he embodies some or all of those ideological characteristics? I think so. Each of them arrived with an agenda to turn America into the vision of themselves and the despicable goal of changing America into a European style state of fear and class warfare. Sadly, we see it happening before our very eyes, but we refuse to stand up and make our presence and our voices known. That must change. We have to get involved. If we sit still for the usual emanations from Washington, D.C. and say nothing, do nothing, we will be nothing. Who to blame? Only ourselves.

Rubio is in the same boat as Santorum. Catholic theocracy all the way. He won't say anything to risk that VP invitation.

Actually there are reports that Rubio doesn't attend a Catholic church, but a Baptist one.

The family left the Mormon church by the time Rubio was 12, according to Rubio’s office, and he received First Communion in the Catholic Church a year later. After returning to Miami, Rubio was confirmed, and he was married in the church.

But as he got older, Rubio started to attend Christ Fellowship in Miami, a church affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention. Though he had substantial debt, due to mortgages and student loans, Rubio gave about $50,000 to the church over a period of years last decade. He also gave to the Catholic Church, his office said.

In the 2002 Florida House Clerk’s Manual, Rubio described himself as Catholic. Two years later he listed himself as Baptist, then two years after that, he identified himself as Catholic.

“Around 2005 Marco began to return to his Catholic roots,” according to a time line provided by the senator’s office, which added, “He enjoys the sermons and the excellent children’s ministry at Christ Fellowship, and still attends often.”

1) Jews were talked about in Space Traders because the parallel to the Holocaust was obvious. The premise of black people being shipped off to an unknown place was a combination of slavery (ships) and being rounded off to be sent away (the Nazi's rounding up Jews) in order to "improve" society. The complex reaction was based on an understanding of the parallel, but also the fear that once blacks were gone, who would be next? Once the most feared and maligned group of people were removed from American society, who would replace them because somebody would. Who would the haters start hating next? Jews, given their history would be contenders. At least that's how I took it when I read the story when I was 15.

2) Most black people do not make distinctions between white ethnic groups. We really don't. A black person who is truly anti-semitic doesn't like any white people. See Louis Farrakhan.

Or I'll just let Chris Rock say it

[Embedded content]

I like reading this discussion because I want to understand Bell and there's such a one-sided take on him from completely unreliable sources.

Black prejudice against Jews (and vice versa for that matter) always surprises me because I think we have similar cultural experiences. I've always felt we were a good mix.

The acceptance of Farrakhan really puzzles me, though. That he's a preacher and hates so fervently. Muslim or no Muslim. And I don't agree with Jews when they do it either. MLK's message was so different, but for me, he spoke closer to the human condition that went beyond skin color.

Just asked my Wife how Michelle looked in that dress. She took one look and said pregnant. Don't ask me why. She basically said it wasn't fat because if it was, it would also be showing up in her face as well. Ladies?

Myself, I thought she looked hot.

Not fond of it. The color is great, the cut is fine...EXCEPT..for whatever is going on on the bodice. The wrapping is great, but then we've got that odd Madonna-pointy-boobs thing going on on the front. Fix that, and it's a winner.

Just asked my Wife how Michelle looked in that dress. She took one look and said pregnant. Don't ask me why. She basically said it wasn't fat because if it was, it would also be showing up in her face as well. Ladies?

He doesn't want the VP nod, I don't think. He's going to hang back this time around, and not risk getting stained by a loss. But he's a very effective politician, and he'll make a big move in time, just not yet.

The birthers hate him anyway. As long as that idiocy keeps infecting the GOP, he's got an uphill battle:

Sen. Marco Rubio is shocked, shocked I tell you, that Republicans are starting to say directly to Latinos what they say about Latinos all of the time to other Republicans!

Seriously, Rubio is a member of a party that constantly goes on about English being made the official language, how terrible it is that Latinos speak Spanish and don't learn English quick enough and that we should get rid of ESL classes in schools. Does he really have a right to be surprised that finally somebody said to their faces what Republicans say all of the time anyway?

If Rubio is embarrassed, he can shove it.

I'm more keen on how he will explain this to his key voters (Puerto Ricans are quickly increasing in Florida, and obviously Cubans).

I would, however, argue that the true critical passage is this one that just precedes your excerpt:

We found that the dreaded four-letter word that could burn the eardrums of a sweet mother or even a hard-hearted father did not start with the letter 'F.' No, no ... that would have been too simple. There are worse four-letter words that not only burn the eardrums but they singe the soul. They change life as we know it. They create an environment of hell on earth. And alas, sometimes they come wrapped in the promises of easy living, free lunches forever and fun times at the social picnic. But as the wrappings are peeled away and truth is revealed, and we see the four-letter words that imprison us with our own trappings. They become clear and defined. They are "fear and envy" and the worst four letter word of all, "hate."

Hate fuels the fear, the envy, and we bind ourselves to the adversary by falling into the trap of each of them. We can never lose our awareness that those who perpetrate the lie and the hate by using their best tools of fear and envy and class warfare are alive and well and doing their very best to take our basic freedoms away from us. The word and its implications need to get lost from the lexicon of the American landscape. I realize that will be hard for the Left in America as it is what feeds their motivations and goals.

Gerald Molen is quite right about the effects of hatred, but is wrong in equally great measure in simply attributing the utility of hatred to the left. Both parties have haters, and it is those on the right who are the worse by a good margin at this time. So what we're left with is Molan giving good, if unoriginal insight into ways to think, only to throw away the value of that insight with a DERP! at the end of the second paragraph before getting into some serious DERPage in the paragraph Gus quoted.

Just asked my Wife how Michelle looked in that dress. She took one look and said pregnant. Don't ask me why. She basically said it wasn't fat because if it was, it would also be showing up in her face as well. Ladies?

Myself, I thought she looked hot.

She does. The Mrs.'s might have missed where the top ends and the skirt begins. Michelle has been doing a lot of crunches to get into that skirt.

Just asked my Wife how Michelle looked in that dress. She took one look and said pregnant. Don't ask me why. She basically said it wasn't fat because if it was, it would also be showing up in her face as well. Ladies?

Full Disclosure: I met Joel Pollack twice in 2010 when he ran for Congress in Illinois's 9th Congressional District (the district in which I live). At the time I was much impressed by him and he did not show the nuttiness we now see out of him. In 2010 I was proud to have voted for him, now I am not (though even if I knew who he really was, I still would have voted for him over Jan Schakowsky).

wait, you met a politician and they put on a show of being really nice and personable?

Not fond of it. The color is great, the cut is fine...EXCEPT..for whatever is going on on the bodice. The wrapping is great, but then we've got that odd Madonna-pointy-boobs thing going on on the front. Fix that, and it's a winner.

Mrs. O herself looks fine and healthy as usual.

I think the camera is just catching her funny... with her arms so rigid. I think it looks amazing.

Each of them arrived with an agenda to turn America into the vision of themselves and the despicable goal of changing America into a European style state of fear and class warfare. Sadly, we see it happening before our very eyes, but we refuse to stand up and make our presence and our voices known.

I like reading this discussion because I want to understand Bell and there's such a one-sided take on him from completely unreliable sources.

Black prejudice against Jews (and vice versa for that matter) always surprises me because I think we have similar cultural experiences. I've always felt we were a good mix.

The acceptance of Farrakhan really puzzles me, though. That he's a preacher and hates so fervently. Muslim or no Muslim. And I don't agree with Jews when they do it either. MLK's message was so different, but for me, he spoke closer to the human condition that went beyond skin color.

Farrakhan's following in the black community is very, very small if for no other reason then most black people are Christians and church going Christians at that. I don't know a single black person who ever talks about Farrakhan except to joke about his belief in UFOs. He may show up at an occasional gathering of black people who talk a lot and have been anointed "black leaders". We don't anoint these people, the media does. There is great admiration for Malcolm X because somebody had to be the bad cop to MLK's good cop. He was flawed and angry, but we love him too. But that has never flowed over to Farrakhan, much to his disappointment. He has become a largely comical figure.

SECTION 9. English is the official language of Florida.—
(a) English is the official language of the State of Florida.
(b) The legislature shall have the power to enforce this section by appropriate legislation.
History.—Proposed by Initiative Petition filed with the Secretary of State August 8, 1988; adopted 1988.

During Governor Bob Martinez' tenure, Florida's first Hispanic governor, no less! But he was a big jerk, too.

wait, you met a politician and they put on a show of being really nice and personable?

say it ain't so, joe

It is what it is, WUB. All I can tell you is what I saw, and how I interpreted it at the time. I sung Joel Pollack's name from the rafters here on LGF in 2010 and I knew that would likely be brought up, if not by a fellow Lizard then by the Stalkers' "Boiler Room Boiling with Butthurt Rage Crew". Best to just disclose right away and get it over with.

Just asked my Wife how Michelle looked in that dress. She took one look and said pregnant. Don't ask me why. She basically said it wasn't fat because if it was, it would also be showing up in her face as well. Ladies?

Myself, I thought she looked hot.

Also, too. Stop saying other ladies look hot in front of your wife. Even if it's FLOTUS she may not appreciate it. ;)

An event took place in 2008 that changed the world we live in. It changed the face of America, it changed the direction of our moral values, it changed how we view the future and how we see ourselves as human beings and it changed the make up of our basic freedoms that we so irreverently tossed aside for entitlement freebies and empty promises by the engineers at the helm.

Glad to hear it. But I could not be sure of that, and there does remain the matter of the Stalkers. They'll still DERP it up, of course, but I wanted to deny them any grounds with which to call me a liar.

There's a piece at IMDB from 2008 (originally from a conservative blog) allegedly written by Gerald Molen, the producer, where he predicts the following:

To close my screed, I want to leave you with some JM predictions in the event the junior Senator from Illinois becomes President and especially if the House and Senate are veto proof.

1). Strict new gun laws will be enacted even though he promised he would not.
2). The phrase 'In God We Trust' will be removed from all currency.
3). He will back away from his pledge to Israel and leave them to the wolves of Islam.
4). Hillary Clinton will be named to the Supreme Court.
5). Tax rates will return to their highest levels in 30 years.
6). The capital gains tax will be at least double current levels.
7). Retired Army General Wesley Clark will be named Secretary of Defense.
8). The borders will be 'basically open' to all comers. Especially those from the Middle East and South America.
9). Amnesty will be granted to all illegals (sic) now in the U.S regardless of status or even gang members (MS-13).
and
10). The war in Iraq will be brought to an abrupt end and the results will be tragic and the consequences to our military will be devastating.

On second thought, maybe it's not such a good idea. The guy who posted it at IMDB couldn't confirm that it was Molen who wrote it. My guess is based on the language, syntax and (*cough*) ideas, it was Molen, but it's hearsay.

Because anyone familiar with Boston and New York political history knows about the wealthy Mutterperl family’s long tradition of supporting the typical Jewish variant of socialism.

...

I wonder if Adam has ever been to a kibbutz.

...

This school, as some people call it, is named for Louis Brandeis, a secular Jew, Zionist, and United States Supreme Court Justice appointed by Woodrow Wilson.

...

Sol was also supportive of unions and was the Director of the United Jewish Appeal (now The Jewish Federations of North America) a Jewish “social” organization. From the JFNA website:

The Federation movement, collectively among the top 10 charities on the continent, protects and enhances the well-being of Jews worldwide through the values of tikkun olam (repairing the world), tzedakah (charity and social justice) and Torah (Jewish learning).

There’s that “social justice” code word again. Jewish Socialism is linked to a very progressive concept of the above tikkun olam. New Bedford, MA, where Raphael Mutterperl ran the family’s manufacturing arm, was a hotbed of Marxist trade-unionism in early 20th century America. Why? It was easy to “sell” radical trade-unionism to a whole people group who were brought up in the lap of Weimar Marxian ideology, because New Bedford had many new eastern-European Jewish immigrants living there at the time, including, of course, the Mutterperl family.

...

In addition to the Mutterperl’s extensive history within the Jewish socialist activist/political world, and their generational wealth, they’re still doing what they can to help the 99%.

...

Her boyfriend, Adam Mutterperl, is the son of one of the most well-connected leftist Jewish families on the East Coast (add the West Coast to that, apparently), with ties to neo-Marxist Brandeis University as decades old donors… and whose father, Bill Mutterperl, worked directly for Paul Volcker, one of Obama’s pals, advisors, and Keynesian “stimulus” bill architects. Yet, we’re supposed to believe that this just boils down to a poor girl needing us to “subsidize” her birth control. RIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT!

...

Either way, Sandra’s connection to this particular Jewish-American socialist dynasty is a “little” secret that they don’t want you to know.

...

Oh, as a complete aside, check out Adam’s grandpappy, Martin Mutterperl, hanging out with Cass Sunstein’s, (another Obama appointee, Regulatory Czarina, and overall radical leftist) great-uncle, Alexander Cass Sunstein, and Samuel “Subway Sam” Rosoff, the guy who killed one of his detractors over a labor union spat, in Palm Beach back in 1965, at the Ambassador Hotel (see: photo below). Purely coincidence, I’m sure, since they’re all associated with Marxists, socialists, and trade-unionists of Eastern-European, Jewish, descent.

There’s that “social justice” code word again. Jewish Socialism is linked to a very progressive concept of the above tikkun olam. New Bedford, MA, where Raphael Mutterperl ran the family’s manufacturing arm, was a hotbed of Marxist trade-unionism in early 20th century America. Why? It was easy to “sell” radical trade-unionism to a whole people group who were brought up in the lap of Weimar Marxian ideology, because New Bedford had many new eastern-European Jewish immigrants living there at the time, including, of course, the Mutterperl family.

I wouldn't say it was hard work. Just a willingness to understanding each others needs. Yes it was bumpy and sometimes rocky at first, but we both learned how to negotiate and reach a common ground. As for dedication, well there are not many things I would refuse Her, without a damn good reason.

I'd caution against it. I found the piece at IMDB, but it looks to be one of those unverifiable "passed along the internet" things. It could very well be legit, but I haven't found the original source.

The style of writing seems similar to the Breitbart piece, but without stronger verification, I dunno.

///Don't forget to bring up how he's a sex freak who wants it so often that his girlfriend needs to spend $3,000 a year on contraceptives!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in that little screed, he blames uber-socialist Brandeis University... on Sandra Fluke?

I'm confused.

The Mutterperl family, via Adam’s great grandfather Sol’s handbag fortune, established the “Mutterperl Scholarship Endowment Fund” in 1951 for Brandeis University. This school, as some people call it, is named for Louis Brandeis, a secular Jew, Zionist, and United States Supreme Court Justice appointed by Woodrow Wilson. Brandeis was a self-proclaimed socialist. Herbert Marcuse, the famous Frankfurt School Marxist, came to Brandeis in 1954, three years after the Mutterperl fund was created. Brandeis University is one of the nation’s leading petri dishes for anti-American and neo-Marxist thought. Here’s the statement from the Brandeis bulletin about the Mutterperl fund:

Those damn Jewish, SECULAR (the religious ones are the REAL ones, you know, those Sephardic, not those nasty Ashkenazi) Socialist, Zionist, Democrat pig-dogs are all evil.

4. Obama stood oblivious to the fact that plank #2 of “The Communist Manifesto” is “a heavy progressive or graduated income tax”, and by pointing it out, he proved Teddy Roosevelt was supportive of communist ideology. Sadly, all the Obama supporters who laughed, proved that they too don’t know history.

Apparently he doesn't understand logic terribly well and has no problem with affirming the consequent:If you are a communist you must accept graduated income tax ≡ If you accept graduated income tax you are necessarily a communist.

He also conflates Socialism with Communism and by proxy with totalitarianism.

6. Socialism opposes parental rights in education
Socialism has the State, and not parents, control the education of children. Almost from birth, children are to be handed over to public institutions, where they will be taught what the State wants, regardless of parental views. Evolution must be taught. School prayer must be forbidden.

“Everything tells me that the world would be an exquisite place to live were everyone able to respond to life as Jesus did. I call that 'mama-loshen.' That is a Yiddish word meaning straight talk mixed with common sense. Actually it goes deeper than that. 'Mama-loshen' is the understanding that comes when one's common sense derives as much from the soul as the mind. The Sermon on the Mount is simple mama-loshen. And anything that ain't mama-loshen doesn't square with my religious sensibilities.”

He's not his grandmother, and he likely views his grandmother as a relative first and a Jew second (If that was his point).

The hot new trend in responsibility deflection: is the Jewish grandmother the new Black Friend?

Color me jaded, but every racist I know in my hometown points to one or two black folks as "the good ones" and leverages that as an excuse to say stupid, bigoted things about every other black person...who, not being one of the "good ones" get n-bombed.

Oh, I can get the whole article too, but I think the excerpts above, and specifically the footnote are more than enough - the rest goes into other areas. I said above that this is up for grabs since I won't page it - so if you can post it with your thoughts, or maybe b_sharp will do it, it's all fine - the info will be out there.

My favorite Yiddish word is "umgebroizelt." It means to walk around in a seething rage, all the time.

I love it when another language (than English) so perfectly articulates an complex, yet whole, idea with a word. And Yiddish is fantastic. I never stop encountering words and phrases that I desperately want to incorporate into my personal lexicon...case in point, umgebroizelt....

Well, the 'evils' of socialism are of course going to be tyranny. But places like Norway are often self-referred to as socialist, and they're quite nice.

Exactly!

I'm trying to wrap my head around the idea that somehow "some people" think we can manage to remain a relatively peaceful world with the sheer numbers of humans on the planet WITHOUT socialistic thinking.

I love it when another language (than English) so perfectly articulates an complex, yet whole, idea with a word. And Yiddish is fantastic. I never stop encountering words and phrases that I desperately want to incorporate into my personal lexicon...case in point, umgebroizelt...

Try to find a way to work "machetaynischter" into a conversation, no other language has a word for that relationship (your offspring's spouse's parents are your machetaynischters. They're inferior of course, you're a far better in-law to their child than they are to yours. You're also a much better grandparent than they are.)

You know, I'm beginning to think the fear of Socialism is really a fear of Tyranny. Have there been any historical examples of the evils of which we think of as Socialism without Tyranny?

Stalin, Pol Pot, etc . . .

that depends partly on whether we use the dictionary definition of socialism as 'a form of economic organization where the government owns and operates all major industries' or the wingnut definition of 'gummint gave my tax money to help somebody i don't like'

You know, I'm beginning to think the fear of Socialism is really a fear of Tyranny. Have there been any historical examples of the evils of which we think of as Socialism without Tyranny?

Stalin, Pol Pot, etc . . .

Socialism is not totalitarian, whereas Communism in the form it has appeared has been. Socialism can be considered a democratic Statism and we haven't seen pure versions of that in real life yet, so we haven't seen Socialism with tyranny yet.

It's only when you conflate Communism, as it has been manifested, with Socialism that Socialism can be linked to tyranny.

We live in a moderate Socialist state now. Think military, police, fire fighters, subways,...

Socialism is not totalitarian, whereas Communism in the form it has appeared has been. Socialism can be considered a democratic Statism and we haven't seen pure versions of that in real life yet, so we haven't seen Socialism with tyranny yet.

It's only when you conflate Communism, as it has been manifested, with Socialism that Socialism can be linked to tyranny.

We live in a moderate Socialist state now. Think military, police, fire fighters, subways,...

As economic systems --we have a mixed economy --right?

Here is where we can get into the nitty gritty of terminology --what is an economic system, political system, etc.

I am trying to work with perceptions. (perceptions and logic of the fox news listeners in my life) Not necessarily dictionary or scholarly definitions.

Socialism = Bad
WHY? = mass death
mass death = tyranny

We do have many socialist systems in this country, what we don't have is a tyrant; therefore, no mass death.

Socialism is not totalitarian, whereas Communism in the form it has appeared has been. Socialism can be considered a democratic Statism and we haven't seen pure versions of that in real life yet, so we haven't seen Socialism with tyranny yet.

It's only when you conflate Communism, as it has been manifested, with Socialism that Socialism can be linked to tyranny.

We live in a moderate Socialist state now. Think military, police, fire fighters, subways,...

if you define socialism the way it's usually used in this country these days, it applies more or less to every government that's ever existed since the beginning of history

There are 2,713,469 sites with a better three-month global Alexa traffic rank than Thegraph.com. The fraction of visits to the site referred by search engines is about 10%. Visitors to the site view an average of 1.1 unique pages per day. About 91% of visits to Thegraph.com are bounces (one pageview only). Visitors to the site spend about two minutes on each pageview and a total of two minutes on the site during each visit.

iirc the soviet union considered that it was a socialist state trying to 'build communism' but never quite got there

Sure. One should distinguish communism as an end goal and communism as an ideology of moving towards that end goal. The former can never happen, since a true communist society is an utopia. But while communists move towards communism, they're still socialists.

I am trying to work with perceptions. (perceptions and logic of the fox news listeners in my life) Not necessarily dictionary or scholarly definitions.

Just copy, paste, print, and hand out the following with a reminder to have a cup...

This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the US Department of Energy. I then took a shower in the clean water provided by the municipal water supply. After that, I turned the TV to one of the FCC regulated channels to see what the National Weather Service of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration determined what the weather was going to be like using satellites designed, built, and launched by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. I watched this while eating my breakfast of US Department of Agriculture inspected food and taking drugs which have been determined as safe by the Food and Drug Administration.

At the appropriate time as regulated by the US Congress and kept accurate by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the US Naval Observatory, I get into my National Highway Traffic Safety Administration approved automobile and set out to work on the roads built by local, state, and federal Departments of Transportation, possibly stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level determined by the Environmental Protection agency, using legal tender issued by the Federal Reserve Bank. On the way out the door I deposit any mail I have to be sent out via the US Postal Service and drop the kids off at the public school.

After work, I drive my NHTSA car back home on the DOT roads, to a house which has not burned down in my absence because of the state and local building codes and Fire Marshal inspection, and which has not been plundered of all its valuables thanks to the local police department.

I then log onto the internet which was developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Administration and post on freerepublic.com and Fox News forums about how SOCIALISM in medicine is BAD because the Government can't do anything right.

Sure. One should distinguish communism as an end goal and communism as an ideology of moving towards that end goal. The former can never happen, since a true communist society is an utopia. But while communists move towards communism, they're still socialists.

Yiddish is a fantastic language. I wonder if Maya Rudolph's Jewish side of the family is Borscht Belt. Her father is a Jewish music producer who fell in love with Maya's mother, on first glance. That lady was Minnie Riperton:

if you define socialism the way it's usually used in this country these days, it applies more or less to every government that's ever existed since the beginning of history

Socialism is putting the society ahead of the individual, whereas Communism is the ownership of the individual in the sense of full control of actions and beliefs. The conflation of Socialism with Communism which is totalitarian and tyrannical is an American thing. Most European countries and Canada are far more accepting of the Socialist/Free Market hybrid common in the top economies.

With the damage from the Earthquake, and now this, I think we should take it apart carefully, cataloging the location of the marble blocks, and those blocks that were sponsored and imprinted with a message or thingy, and deconstructed.

Then, rebuild it with internal structure (You know, steel and stuff). As it stands the Washington Monument is one of the largest Unreinforced Masonry Buildings.

The International Energy Agency cut forecasts for oil supplies from outside OPEC this year because of lower exports from Sudan and Syria, cautioning that reduced spare output capacity raises the risk of a price surge.

Producers not in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries will provide 53.5 million barrels a day this year, or 200,000 a day less than the IEA forecast last month. The agency kept estimates for global oil demand in 2012 unchanged, predicting fuel use will remain “stunted” by the economic slowdown and higher prices. Disappointing non-OPEC output will make the market more reliant on a “slim buffer” of spare production capacity from a few OPEC nations, the IEA said.

[...]

Yeah, Newt cries DRILL BABY DRILL!!, but the reality is that "oil" (how I hate that term) is a commodity on a global market, and world demand can suck up every last drop that is produced. Prices are high because it is a valuable resource, and it will remain valuable for how ever long people desire it.

if you define socialism the way it's usually used in this country these days, it applies more or less to every government that's ever existed since the beginning of history

let me put this more clearly:

when i ask republicans what they mean by 'socialism' they generally say "redistribution of income". when i then ask if using taxes to fund the military is, then, socialism, they modify it to "redistribution of taxes as charity without explicit consent of the taxpayer"

now, tell me: does anybody know of any government in the history of the world that did not collect taxes/tariffs/whatever and use it in part as income support for the least fortunate?

A nervous Rush is eagerly trying to make the point that not all women agree that birth control should be paid for by insurance companies. He must think we don’t see him moving the goal post from his comments on the issue to the issue itself.

The advertisers are not boycotting Rush because of his point of view about birth control; they are boycotting him because while discussing his opinion, which he has every right to do, he repeatedly and on multiple occasions, used ugly words like slut and prostitute about not only a private female citizen but about all women on birth control. They are also boycotting him because he pushed it even further when he demanded sex tapes from women who want their health insurance to pay for birth control.

Rush won’t say it, but it’s clear that he’s scared. Radio stations are losing money by airing his show and advertisers are jumping ship.

Rush can BS like that all he wants, but no one will believe him. In a country of 150 million+ women, you can find 40-50 women willing to go on Rush's show and look silly. Some of them might even be fanatical enough to think he's right, but just spoke badly. But most people, men and women alike, are not fooled: Rush remains an ass. If he wants to atone for what he did, then he can invite Sandra Fluke on to his show, apologize sincerely when she steps up to the mic, and then get the hell out of the broadcast booth and let her have the rest of the show that day. Wingnuts would hate that, but I'd then believe Rush was really sorry for what he said.

The state has the third highest rate of cervical cancer in the country and one in four women are uninsured. After cutting family-planning funding by around two-thirds last legislative session, conservative lawmakers are now standing by their decision to cut off Planned Parenthood from the state's Women's Health Program, a move that ended $35 million in federal funding.

Do you remember in the days leading up to the Republican electoral victory in 2010, how the Tea Party marched on Washington with signs saying “Birth Control Is Bad”?

Neither do I.

Less than a year and a half after Republicans swept to the biggest midterm congressional landslide since Grover Cleveland’s second term, they are struggling against a president presiding over a struggling economy, rising gas prices, and an approval rating in the low 40s. Prospects for a Senate takeover, once a foregone conclusion, are now are tenuous. Even the newly won House majority is in jeopardy.

What has changed?

Some may blame this on a nasty primary between three of the least inspiring presidential candidates since Bob Dole. But the current GOP seems to have lost any semblance of a coherent message.

he 2010 Republican victories, and the tea-party movement that drove them, were based on a few critical issues: the crushing burden of our national debt; opposition to wasteful government spending, including bailouts and the stimulus; and a desire for limited constitutional government. It stood in opposition to the big-government nostrums of both the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations.

These were issues that had broad support, not just from the Republican base, but from independents as well, including crucial suburban moderates. But Republicans have spent the last several months ignoring these issues.

And for a change of pace when quoting comments, here we have a sane person commenting on Mr. Tanner's article and actually giving useful advice:

sinz54
03/14/12 08:21

The GOP wouldn't have lost focus, if:

a) there weren't a major contender for the GOP nomination--Santorum--who has emphasized sexual matters so often in the past--as recently as last October. And who refuses to drop the subject. And whose supporters also refuse to drop the subject. (And sure enough, Santorum was never a favorite of the Tea Party.)

b) there weren't a certain popular talk-show host who gave his fans their marching orders: Sexually active unmarried women who get health care via health insurance--paid by the rest of us--are sl*ts and prostitutes.

I have pleaded with some of these folks to drop the subject, defuse the issue, and get back to talking about Obama's record. But evidently there is still a culture out there that believes that women should remain virgins until they get married--even though women are marrying at later ages these days. (Ms. Fluke herself is 30 years old.) I've even seen folks on blogs lamenting the fact that American women got the right to vote.

This is the kind of stuff that guys may talk about amongst themselves in locker rooms or in bars over a few drinks: "My wife just doesn't understand me...." "Women are impossible...." Or the kind of stuff that certain preachers keep telling their congregations. It does NOT belong in a Presidential campaign, and social conservatives should stop injecting it into this campaign immediately.

And for a change of pace when quoting comments, here we have a sane person commenting on Mr. Tanner's article and actually giving useful advice:

Frankly, if one believes these things, one can't 'drop the subject'. Beliefs are still important and still relevant, regardless of whether or not the point is emphasized any given day. It's abundantly clear that many of the GOP powers that be implicitly or explicitly endorse this viewpoint, and that's all there is to that. If they wished to be free of this yoke, they'd say that Limbaugh et al. were regressive assholes.

A new national survey from Fox news shows both former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum suffering a bit on favorability with American voters as the Republican presidential primaries continue -- Romney is seen favorably by 39 percent of voters nationaly against 49 percent who see him in a negative light, while Santorum gets a 35 - 47 split on the question. In January, only 34 percent of voters had a negative view of Santorum, resulting in a jump of 13 points over the last two months.

In direct matchups, President Obama bests both Republicans, 46 - 42 against Romney and 51 - 39 against Santorum. Obama also has a positive approval rating in the Fox poll for the second month in a row, as February was the first time the President was above water on the metic since the summer of 2011.

Guh. I really do feel for Sandra Fluke, and much of what I feel is pride. All she did was testify before a congressional forum about the need for oral contraceptives with regard to women's health issues (that's health, not sex), and now she is the focus of a shitstorm of hatred, bigotry, and lies.

And even in the face dishonest vitriol from Wingnut In Chief, El Rushbo himself, she stood firm.

I hope this experience only serves to strengthen her resolve to advocate for important issues like this one.

Guh. I really do feel for Sandra Fluke, and much of what I feel is pride. All she did was testify before a congressional forum about the need for oral contraceptives with regard to women's health issues (that's health, not sex), and now she is the focus of a shitstorm of hatred, bigotry, and lies.

And even in the face dishonest vitriol from Wingnut In Chief, El Rushbo himself, she stood firm.

I hope this experience only serves to strengthen her resolve to advocate for important issues like this one.

Well said. And was she ever asking the government to pay for her contraception, or anyone else's? Many on the right seem to think so.

Frankly, if one believes these things, one can't 'drop the subject'. Beliefs are still important and still relevant, regardless of whether or not the point is emphasized any given day. It's abundantly clear that many of the GOP powers that be implicitly or explicitly endorse this viewpoint, and that's all there is to that. If they wished to be free of this yoke, they'd say that Limbaugh et al. were regressive assholes.

The issue isn't what you believe, it's keeping focus on the issues that will win you the election. That may mean not paying much attention to other issues important to you, but with which your views are less popular; If so, that's just the price you need to pay. Win first, then work on pet issues a bit if you've got the time. But keep the critical issues you need to win with front and center.

Just asked my Wife how Michelle looked in that dress. She took one look and said pregnant. Don't ask me why. She basically said it wasn't fat because if it was, it would also be showing up in her face as well. Ladies?

Myself, I thought she looked hot.

It's a beautiful dress, but a little 'slouchy'. I'm torn, I love everything about it but that.

The issue isn't what you believe, it's keeping focus on the issues that will win you the election.

That's just it-- Santorum IS winning elections with his message. He resonates with a large amount of the GOP base. They talk about socially conservative issues and about birth control and sex and morality because they honestly believe that wins them elections.

The issue isn't what you believe, it's keeping focus on the issues that will win you the election. That may mean not paying much attention to other issues important to you, but with which your views are less popular; If so, that's just the price you need to pay. Win first, then work on pet issues a bit if you've got the time. But keep the critical issues you need to win with front and center.

You don't get to tell women 'sorry we brought that up, it's not very important to us actually, it was a boo-boo, let's talk about the deficit or something!'

Sorry. That's not how it works. You don't get to re-hide the party's raison d'être, and by all facts and appearances social issues are such for the GOP.

Well said. And was she ever asking the government to pay for her contraception, or anyone else's? Many on the right seem to think so.

Wingnut talking points. They are using anything and everything they can think of to obfuscate the real, core points of this issue. Though I have not exactly heard it said, I suspect it is just another false plank in their platform against health care reform.

The issue isn't what you believe, it's keeping focus on the issues that will win you the election. That may mean not paying much attention to other issues important to you, but with which your views are less popular; If so, that's just the price you need to pay. Win first, then work on pet issues a bit if you've got the time. But keep the critical issues you need to win with front and center.

You mean like the roughly 20 states that have made abortion restrictions (and now contraception restrictions) part of their legislative agenda? I guess those states must have a lot of time on their hands to focus on such issues. Those "pet issues" have blown up into something much larger. And that cat's out of the bag now, the gop has to defend it.

Farrakhan's following in the black community is very, very small if for no other reason then most black people are Christians and church going Christians at that. I don't know a single black person who ever talks about Farrakhan except to joke about his belief in UFOs. He may show up at an occasional gathering of black people who talk a lot and have been anointed "black leaders". We don't anoint these people, the media does. There is great admiration for Malcolm X because somebody had to be the bad cop to MLK's good cop. He was flawed and angry, but we love him too. But that has never flowed over to Farrakhan, much to his disappointment. He has become a largely comical figure.

He spoke last week at a Berkeley BSU conference.

It's frustrating for me that he continues to be invited to such things. Local Jewish activists decided against leafleting, in part, I think, for fear it would be seen as a protest of a black event. And that frustrates me too. Why should he get to hide behind all the other speakers who aren't bigots from hell?

(Report is that he announced at some point in his speech that he had a message for the Jewish students at Cal, whereupon a reporter heard a girl in the audience sigh "Oh no." The kids knew his reputation, clearly.)

He's not my biggest problem in life, but he's as obnoxious as Bryan Fischer, without the bear fixation, and he pisses me right off.

Years back I asked a co-worker what he thought of the Nation of Islam. His exact words were "Fuck the Nation".

Turns out a long time school friend of his joined the NoI after high school, and came back full of hatred and bigotry towards Jews, Caucasians, and so on. He talked about him much like one might talk about a dear friend lost in combat.

In our culture, since around WWII the classic female figure (of wide hips) has been out of style. Today most highly rated female models have very masculine looking bodies, and now even down the six-pack (which is quite un-natural for a female).

These things seem to change over the centuries, but it does take a while. Each culture has its own idiosyncracies. When I was in Japan it seemed the culture wanted women with large round eyes and light skin, i.e., women who did not look like the classic Chinese or Mongolian stereotype.

In a century the American ideal female figure may be quite different from today's vision.

As far as I can see the main differences between the horrible tyrants and us is:

1) Individual right to Self-defense (verbal or physical) against imminent danger to one's person, family or property. (this inherently includes property rights--the right to benefit from one's own labor)

2) Individual Right to control reproduction or the engage in the "sex act"

In our culture, since around WWII the classic female figure (of wide hips) has been out of style. Today most highly rated female models have very masculine looking bodies, and now even down the six-pack (which is quite un-natural for a female).

These things seem to change over the centuries, but it does take a while. Each culture has its own idiosyncracies. When I was in Japan it seemed the culture wanted women with large round eyes and light skin, i.e., women who did not look like the classic Chinese or Mongolian stereotype.

In a century the American ideal female figure may be quite different from today's vision.

I think it is already changing. Overall health seems to be taking hold. Muscles --some meat on the body. Even the fashion models are showing some bulk and boobs. I credit Jennifer Lopez and Beyonce.

Should we start looking up information on Brooks Bayne's parents? Are we going to stoop as low as he has? Is this what they've become? Guteral, raw, cheap, dirty and pornographic like Rush Limbaugh. Low life tactics.

I'm watching a few recent BBC TV documentaries and am aghast at how downhill their "science" documentaries have gone. They've got a series going on the Earth and motion, but it's full of just downright inaccuracies, mostly by one of the (non-scientist) hosts. And in the recent "Horizon" episode the narrator keeps posing questions (for us, the viewers, in our place) but they are so slanted and not what a scientist would actually ask.

I'm afraid the BBC is trying to compete with the History Channel, Discover, and NG. Next thing you know they'll jump on the Ancient Aliens' Nazi Undersea Bunker bandwagon.

I don't think it's fair -- questionable as to whether it's effective. They can't tarnish an already tarnished reputations and I'm speaking of the slanderers. There are limits. There are rights and wrongs. This, is wrong.

That's what makes a 4-point deficit at Fox for Romney so interesting. Even with all the bias and bullshit questions, they still can't get a win for either of their potential nominees.

Those numbers only get worse when you look to other polls, like the latest from Pew Research:

The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted March 7-11 among 1,503 adults, including 1,188 registered voters and 538 Republican and Republican-leaning voters, finds that Romney leads Rick Santorum, 33% to 24%, in the GOP nomination contest. A month ago, the two men were in a virtual tie (28% Romney, 30% Santorum).

But both GOP frontrunners are running well behind Barack Obama in general election matchups. Among all voters, Obama leads Romney by 12 points (54% to 42%) and Santorum by 18 points (57% to 39%). Obama’s advantage among women voters, while largely unchanged from a month ago, remains substantial – 20 points over Romney and 26 points over Santorum.

Obama also holds an enthusiasm advantage over both of his main GOP rivals. In a matchup with Romney, 41% say they support Obama strongly, compared with only 28% who strongly support the former Massachusetts governor. Obama holds a commanding 45% to 28% lead over Santorum in strong support.

I'm watching a few recent BBC TV documentaries and am aghast at how downhill their "science" documentaries have gone. They've got a series going on the Earth and motion, but it's full of just downright inaccuracies, mostly by one of the (non-scientist) hosts. And in the recent "Horizon" episode the narrator keeps posing questions (for us, the viewers, in our place) but they are so slanted and not what a scientist would actually ask.

I'm afraid the BBC is trying to compete with the History Channel, Discover, and NG. Next thing you know they'll jump on the Ancient Aliens' Nazi Undersea Bunker bandwagon.

I remember when the science channels shows with actual scientists and zoologists. Now its all crap reality shows with pet whispers or some gimmick for drama

Discovery, and their other outlet Science Channel, are big on Aliens right now.

History Channel is consumed with marginal and fringe American lifestyle rather than "history".

National Geographic is using techniques in their shows that are overly manipulatory or falsely dramatic - for example, in their show on the discovery of A. sediba (the "2 Million Year Old Boy") they use strong side-lighting and low-lighting in their interviews in order to make everything threatening and dramatic, probably because the American audience would be too bored with straightforward exposition.

This need to be entertained, rather than educated, is behind, I assert, the drive on the internet for the extremes in the postings of attention-getters (say, Malkin or Breitbart) is to tap into this market to be entertained, rather than be factually informed.

Discovery, and their other outlet Science Channel, are big on Aliens right now.

History Channel is consumed with marginal and fringe American lifestyle rather than "history".

National Geographic is using techniques in their shows that are overly manipulatory or falsely dramatic - for example, in their show on the discovery of A. sediba (the "2 Million Year Old Boy") they use strong side-lighting and low-lighting in their interviews in order to make everything threatening and dramatic, probably because the American audience would be too bored with straightforward exposition.

This need to be entertained, rather than educated, is behind, I assert, the drive on the internet for the extremes in the postings of attention-getters (say, Malkin or Breitbart) is to tap into this market to be entertained, rather than be factually informed.

What on earth is more entertaining than watching ants kill a crab with the action being narrated by a dry English accent?

Getting back to the story which I linked earlier (downstairs), about the "Red Deer people" discovery in China... as an example of my claim that this type of anthropological findings will be used to tap into latent (or perhaps not so latent) racism, I offer up this link to the CBS news online site version of the story:

I assume the CBS site moderators will remove the comment once they get to work... but this is just one of many, many examples of how loaded research into human origins is, and one of the many pitfalls into which our unbridled society will fall.

Oh, and the Infowars version of this story has a comment section which has devolved into full on creationism exposition. It ought to be expected I guess, that Alex Jones' audience is basically the same as Joe Farah's.

Oh, and the Infowars version of this story has a comment section which has devolved into full on creationism exposition. It ought to be expected I guess, that Alex Jones' audience is basically the same as Joe Farah's.

Heh heh heh. Alex has their attention for now, but the moment a Republican other than Ron Paul (or perhaps Rand Paul) enters the Oval Office, Jones will become a radioactive potato to them.

That's right, "dark skinned". Now they credit "Discovery News" service as the origination of the article, and sure enough the author (Jennifer Vargas) used the headline, but again she should not have. She simply inserts into the story:

Since the prehistoric humans lived in areas with a lot of sunlight and ultraviolet radiation, they were likely dark-skinned.

Note that in the actual scientific paper, openly available:
[Link: www.plosone.org...]
there is no mention of "dark skin".

None at all.

But Fox News decided to use the unique-to-Vargas headline.

Anyway, the Fox comments (like Infowars - in fact, a whole lot like Infowars) delves more into creationism than racism, though the usual Obama bashers are there in strength. There is the occasional run of the usual hatred:

agbjr 4 hours ago
There are just sooooo many Obama comments this brings to mind ... I must resist the temptation.

or, how about this little exchange:

viktor 4 hours ago
Hmmmm, looks like someone who's part of the NAACP. Darwin's Theory of Evolutions proven again - some of us still look and act like apes.

4gsltw 3 hours ago in reply to viktor
First, it's Darwin's postulation, second, there is absolutely no evidence for it let alone proof, third, the NAACP are communists--not ancient people.

Or, how about this one:

sierra10 4 hours ago
I see where mo o chelle got her looks.

Again, this is not on a Fox Nation entry, but a regular Fox News entry.

Let's see what else is there...

itshappens 5 hours ago
What's with the mugshot of Barry's uncle ObingaBunga, you know, the one arrested, again, for DUI?

I'd be accused of cherry-picking, however most the comments are either reactions to these, or creationism comments.

Keith 8 hours ago
Just breed one of those guys to a modern human and you get a china man. Now it all makes sense.
God was way too smart to start with just two.

And so on (and on and on and on...).

Rupert Murdoch has designed his products to appeal to the lowest slice of society.

What will Fox News do with these comments? Well, if it is anything like the news story from a couple of days ago, about the former JPL scientist who is suing for alleged religious discrimination (he was handing out ID tracts/DVDs), a story on Fox website that gathered over 4000 comments, Fox will just delete the entire database of comments. They do this after they make sure the story is seen by many thousands and garner thousand of comments, btw. Once the mission is accomplished the best thing is to delete all the evidence, eh?

CHICAGO (AP) — They have a reputation for being environmentally minded do-gooders. But an academic analysis of surveys spanning more than 40 years has found that today's young Americans are less interested in the environment and in conserving resources — and often less civic-minded overall — than their elders were when they were young.

The findings go against the widespread belief that environmental issues have hit home with today's young adults, known as Millennials, who have grown up amid climate change discussion and the mantra "reduce, reuse, recycle." The environment is often listed among top concerns of young voters.

[...]

Even so, those working in the environmental field — including some Millennials themselves — aren't that surprised by the findings.

Emily Stokes, a 20-year-old geography student at Western Washington University, grew up in the Pacific Northwest. She thinks people there are more likely to take environmental issues more seriously because of the natural beauty that surrounds them.

"But I still find myself pretty frustrated a lot of the time," said Stokes, who wants to go into marine resource management. "I just think our generation seems fairly narcissistic — and we seem to have the shortest attention span."

[...]

Mark Potosnak, an environmental science professor at DePaul University in Chicago, has noticed an increase in skepticism — or confusion — about climate change among his students as the national debate has heightened. That leads to fatigue, he said.

[...]

A lot of young people also simply don't spend that much time exploring nature, said Beth Christensen, a professor who heads the environmental studies professor at Adelphi University on New York's Long Island.

When she attended Rutgers University in the 1980s, she said it was unusual to find a fellow student who hadn't hiked and spent time in the woods.

"Now a lot of these students have very little experience with the unpaved world," Christensen said.

And now for something completely different. A few years back I had a supervisor that was all excited because he was getting a new employee named Dana. He couldn't wait for the "hot chick" as he put it to arrive. Imagine his surprise when an overweight middle aged man walked through the door and introduced himself as Dana. Believe it or not, that was the last project he supervised. Good morning!

My name is John Johnson but everyone here calls me Vicki....Now this is something the other tour guides won't tell you. In this particular cell-block, Machine Gun Kelly had what we call in the prison system, a "bitch". And one night in a jealous rage Kelly took a make-shift knife or "shiv", and cut out the bitch's eyes. And as if this wasn't enough retribution for Kelly, the next day he and four other inmates took turns pissing into the bitch's ocular cavities. (short pause) This way to the cafeteria!

I remember when it was not uncommon for men in England to have names like Joyce, Evelyn and Vivian.

Then there are names like 'Jamie' - which is a variant of James in the UK, particularly Scotland. (Being called Jamie always bugged me, though, even before knowing it's a female name in other places!)

Names can be confusing sometimes; I got an email at work from a new sysadmin called Tobi: similar work to me, but in my old building, so it took a while before I happened to meet him in person. My mother met a new co-worker named 'Alex' recently, and even after the meeting was unsure for a while: jeans, fairly short hair...

Then there are names like 'Jamie' - which is a variant of James in the UK, particularly Scotland. (Being called Jamie always bugged me, though, even before knowing it's a female name in other places!)

Names can be confusing sometimes; I got an email at work from a new sysadmin called Tobi: similar work to me, but in my old building, so it took a while before I happened to meet him in person. My mother met a new co-worker named 'Alex' recently, and even after the meeting was unsure for a while: jeans, fairly short hair...

And now for something completely different. A few years back I had a supervisor that was all excited because he was getting a new employee named Dana. He couldn't wait for the "hot chick" as he put it to arrive. Imagine his surprise when an overweight middle aged man walked through the door and introduced himself as Dana. Believe it or not, that was the last project he supervised. Good morning!

Jackson, Mississippi (CNN) -- Investigative documents obtained by CNN show that former Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, his wife and his staff may have given preferential treatment to two of the convicted murderers who were among the more than 200 former and current inmates he pardoned in January.

According to the documents compiled by the office of Mississippi's attorney general, the state's former first lady, Marsha Barbour, apparently called a car dealership regarding the purchase of two vehicles for two convicted murderers -- days before they were pardoned. The cars were later delivered to the governor's mansion, two days before the men were released.

CNN has also learned that a member of the governor's staff took the same two men, David Gatlin and Charles Hooker, to get their driver's licenses while they were still in state custody, before their pardons were signed and made official.

I remember when the science channels shows with actual scientists and zoologists. Now its all crap reality shows with pet whispers or some gimmick for drama

It's all edutainment now, all about the shiny. I saw a documentary about a documentary recently (which is a whole new WTF in itself) showing how proud they were of their filing setup .. something about a great big aircraft hangar where they'd be housing their computer generated virtual globe (I know ...) some kind of green-screen setup, so the presenter would dangle around in a giant empty hangar pointing at the empty space where they'd add a fake planet later.

Like the polar bear series: real footage from up near the North Pole, looking at actual wild polar bears through really long lenses, then cut to footage of polar bears being born in a zoo, without mentioning the jump of a few thousand miles. OK, maybe it is impossible to film inside an actual polar bear den - but why pretend? Why not just say "we can't film inside a wild bear's den safely, but here's one in captivity"?

On the Barbour thing: now we see why some states have rules about pardons, like the Governor only being able to grant pardons when recommended by something like a parole board, instead of "hey, that guy in the funny mask seems nice, and knows just the wine to serve with fava beans, I say we let him out". I can see a use for the occasional pardon, but it should be very occasional.

Try to find a way to work "machetaynischter" into a conversation, no other language has a word for that relationship (your offspring's spouse's parents are your machetaynischters. They're inferior of course, you're a far better in-law to their child than they are to yours. You're also a much better grandparent than they are.)

We have a family word for that. To be "yarmooshed" means to be crowded, suffocated, overwhelmed by the crush of relatives.

For example, we are going to Toronto next week for my granddaughter's Bat Mitzvah, and we are staying at the Holiday Inn in order not to be yarmooshed to death.

Then there are names like 'Jamie' - which is a variant of James in the UK, particularly Scotland. (Being called Jamie always bugged me, though, even before knowing it's a female name in other places!)

Names can be confusing sometimes; I got an email at work from a new sysadmin called Tobi: similar work to me, but in my old building, so it took a while before I happened to meet him in person. My mother met a new co-worker named 'Alex' recently, and even after the meeting was unsure for a while: jeans, fairly short hair...

I can well imagine that it could have originated with some ancient marriage contract in which a cow was promised as a dowry butthe cow died before the wedding, so another member of the bride's family was yoked up to pull the plow until a replacement could be found...

I can well imagine that it could have originated with some ancient marriage contract in which a cow was promised as a dowry butthe cow died before the wedding, so another member of the bride's family was yoked up to pull the plow until a replacement could be found...

It is not actually a word in any language, it's just a word that my family made up, to describe one particular set of in-laws.

I have been working way too much. I'm getting too irate at stuff I should be laughing at the idiocy of. I need a minivacation or staycation or some bullshit terminology term for just taking it freaking easy.

This is my problem in being my own boss. I am a workaholic, I keep taking on more and more work. It's really hard to say no to another job and more money and more stuff to do. But I really got to. I haven't snapped at my wife or anything yet but, judging from my reaction to trolls around here, I'm down to my last thin wire.

I hope this nice weather holds. If it does, I can put my current projects to bed over the next couple of weeks, carve out some space, and just lie around in the sunshine.

Part of the problem is I bill at completion of project, so right now I have a ton of payments coming, but very little in the bank account right now, which really exacerbates my MUST WORK MORE attitude.

Not terribly often. In French, never. The French, ironically enough, are the original language Nazis.

Yep. And I lived close to Quebec for a few years. Where their North American counterparts are in full go. I note earlier in this thread that they're fussing whining about halal and kosher butchering right now.

Not terribly often. In French, never. The French, ironically enough, are the original language Nazis.

Not all that ironically; a lot of the French took to the Vichy like it was the best thing ever. The French turned in more Jews to the Nazis than the Italians did, and they were (supposedly) on the other side.

Not all that ironically; a lot of the French took to the Vichy like it was the best thing ever. The French turned in more Jews to the Nazis than the Italians did, and they were (supposedly) on the other side.

Not all that ironically; a lot of the French took to the Vichy like it was the best thing ever. The French turned in more Jews to the Nazis than the Italians did, and they were (supposedly) on the other side.

Heck, just read about the Dreyfus Affair. A lot simmered under the surface in France.

Not all that ironically; a lot of the French took to the Vichy like it was the best thing ever. The French turned in more Jews to the Nazis than the Italians did, and they were (supposedly) on the other side.

If you create a situation in which people think they can benefit themselves by betraying others (especially if those others are a minority), you are going to see a lot of betrayal.

Every nation in WWII was antisemitic to various degrees. It's funny how it's sometimes presented as the Allies going to war to prevent the slaughter of the Jews.

That had almost nothing to do with it. Almost nothing at all. WWII was not a war being fought to stop a genocide.

In fact, most nations were completely ignorant of the genocide until it was largely over. The information that leaked out of Poland and the Soviet bloc in 1942 and 1943 was largely nonexistent, and so horrifying that few people even took it seriously.

In fact, most nations were completely ignorant of the genocide until it was largely over. The information that leaked out of Poland and the Soviet bloc in 1942 and 1943 was largely nonexistent, and so horrifying that few people even took it seriously.

No, actually a lot of information was published in the Western press, it wasn't non-existent, and both the Western Allies and the USSR made public statements about genocide, and specifically about the genocide of the Jews (e.g. see the official Soviet note published on 19.12.1942 which was devoted exclusively to description of the Holocaust).

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]
The Joint Declaration by Members of the United Nations was a statement issued on on December 17, 1942 by the American and British governments on behalf of the Allied Powers. In it, they describe the on-goings events of the Holocaust in Nazi Germany.

The statement was read to British House of Commons in a floor speech by Foreign secretary Anthony Eden, and published on the front page of the New York Times and many other newspapers.[1]
[edit]
Text

"The attention of the Belgian, Czechoslovak, Greek, Jugoslav, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norwegian, Polish, Soviet, United Kingdom and United States Governments and also of the French National Committee has been drawn to numerous reports from Europe that the German authorities, not content with denying to persons of Jewish race in all the territories over which their barbarous rule has been extended, the most elementary human rights, are now carrying into effect Hitler's oft-repeated intention to exterminate the Jewish people in Europe.

From all the occupied countries Jews are being transported in conditions of appalling horror and brutality to Eastern Europe. In Poland, which has been made the principal Nazi slaughterhouse, the ghettos established by the German invader are being systematically emptied of all Jews except a few highly skilled workers required for war industries. None of those taken away are ever heard of again. The able-bodied are slowly worked to death in labor camps. The infirm are left to die of exposure and starvation or are deliberately massacred in mass executions. The number of victims of these bloody cruelties is reckoned in many hundreds of thousands of entirely innocent men, women and children.
The above-mentioned governments and the French National Committee condemn in the strongest possible terms this bestial policy of cold-blooded extermination. They declare that such events can only strengthen the resolve of all freedom-loving peoples to overthrow the barbarous Hitlerite tyranny. They reaffirm their solemn resolution to insure that those responsible for these crimes shall not escape retribution, and to press on with the necessary practical measures to this end."

One of my perennial problems is that I know a little bit about a whole lot of things. It's great for general knowledge's sake, but then when people start discussing it in depth, I quickly find myself in over my head.

One of my perennial problems is that I know a little bit about a whole lot of things. It's great for general knowledge's sake, but then when people start discussing it in depth, I quickly find myself in over my head.

Perhaps. But you seem to be interested in gathering knowledge and learning via discussion with others. That makes you a lot more interesting than reading comments from someone 100% sure of their facts and slaved to a single issue, or a troll simply intent on stirring things without interest in learning or honest exchange of opinion.

Perhaps. But you seem to be interested in gathering knowledge and learning via discussion with others. That makes you a lot more interesting than reading comments from someone 100% sure of their facts and slaved to a single issue, or a troll simply intent on stirring things without interest in learning or honest exchange of opinion.

Aww. *blush* I do love to learn, though. It's actually how I entertain myself. I'm a voracious reader.

Aww. *blush* I do love to learn, though. It's actually how I entertain myself. I'm a voracious reader.

Nothing wrong with that. I have librarian and pack-rat genes from both sides of my family. Mainly read history and sci-fi with a smattering of biography and layman science non-fiction mixed in. (The latter generally from book exchanges with my brother.)

Nothing wrong with that. I have librarian and pack-rat genes from both sides of my family. Mainly read history and sci-fi with a smattering of biography and layman science non-fiction mixed in. (The latter generally from book exchanges with my brother.)

My dad likes to tell the humorous anecdote of when he first realized he was in real trouble as my parent. As a young boy - and I mean young, not more than 6 years old or so - I found Dad's organic chemistry college textbooks and read them. And proceeded to have a rational conversation with him about the concepts contained therein.

I have been working way too much. I'm getting too irate at stuff I should be laughing at the idiocy of. I need a minivacation or staycation or some bullshit terminology term for just taking it freaking easy.

This is my problem in being my own boss. I am a workaholic, I keep taking on more and more work. It's really hard to say no to another job and more money and more stuff to do. But I really got to. I haven't snapped at my wife or anything yet but, judging from my reaction to trolls around here, I'm down to my last thin wire.

I hope this nice weather holds. If it does, I can put my current projects to bed over the next couple of weeks, carve out some space, and just lie around in the sunshine.

Part of the problem is I bill at completion of project, so right now I have a ton of payments coming, but very little in the bank account right now, which really exacerbates my MUST WORK MORE attitude.

If you can't take a several-days break, take a one day break. Get as far away as you can on public transit, take walks and read in cafes, don't come home until after dark. Leave in the dark too, if you can. Don't take a phone. (That might be the hard part.)

Everybody needs a break sometimes. Thankfully for me, my wife serves as an excellent diversion from the dangers of workaholism. She's very spontaneous and all, "Why don't you just take the day off and we'll go do XYZ today?"

Some of us wondered about the motivation of the Occupy supporters on Iranian TV and visiting Tehran. It's interesting to see the decision rationalized in an Occupiers own words.A Wall Street Occupier in Tehran

Editor's Note: Dr. Heather Gautney is an assistant professor of sociology at Fordham University, supporter of Occupy Wall Street and author of Protest and Organization in the Alternative Globalization Era (Palgrave Macmillan). The views expressed in this article are solely those of Heather Gautney.

However, since the period I'm expected to be there ends in a few German holidays (April 6 and April 9) I will be looking into delaying my return to the US for a few days and see if I take the opportunity to play tourist for a day or two. At the minimum I can probably do some scouting for a Germany/France vacation in the next year or so.

I work with a guy who is a great worker. Just found out he did 5 years in prison for having sex with an underage girl when he was 28 or 29. He's on probation for an additional 10 years. You would have never guessed.

I work with a guy who is a great worker. Just found out he did 5 years in prison for having sex with an underage girl when he was 28 or 29. He's on probation for an additional 10 years. You would have never guessed.

I had a boyfriend who lived in NYC on the cheap for about a year and a half. That was one of his escapes.

I just had a visit in here from a rancher who didn't buy anything, but we had a nice chat during which he pulled out his photos of his wife and his first car, and told me about his 29 grandchildren. What a sweetie. That was like a mini-vacation right there.

I work with a guy who is a great worker. Just found out he did 5 years in prison for having sex with an underage girl when he was 28 or 29. He's on probation for an additional 10 years. You would have never guessed.

1. Help him get a raise.
2. Keep him away from kids.

We have no trouble thinking good people can go bad, but find it difficult to believe bad people can become good.

It's getting on for seven years since Robert Rodriguez's Sin City breathed green-screen life into Frank Miller's noir comic series. Since then there's been constant talk of a sequel and much in the way of development hell. But we finally seem closer than ever to Sin City 2 actually happening, with Rodriguez announcing at the SXSW festival that he plans to return to Miller World in the summer, right after shooting his Machete sequel, Machete Kills, in the spring.

It's like every movie I want to see on the big screen has spent months, if not years, stuck there. If the studio's not demanding script rewrites, it's that the stars want rewrites or have gone to other projects, or the director just up and abandoned the whole thing.

A very sad piece. Hearkens back to the support of Stalin among some individuals in 1930s-1950s. Not quite as bad, but the same vector.

I thought it was very interesting. At least the lefties and the Stalinists had a bit of shared ideology. She's shilling for a theocracy and seems to be willing to become a useful idiot of sorts. Even more interesting is her statements about some of her fellow academics who happened to be iranian encouraging her to go. The Iranian government seems mostly interesting in encouraging the anti-war sentiment in OWS. It does set up the possibility that they could be using the movement in an attempt to sway public opinion here in America. I suspect that this could lead to problems if the alliance between Iran and OWS becomes too cozy.

I had a boyfriend who lived in NYC on the cheap for about a year and a half. That was one of his escapes.

I just had a visit in here from a rancher who didn't buy anything, but we had a nice chat during which he pulled out his photos of his wife and his first car, and told me about his 29 grandchildren. What a sweetie. That was like a mini-vacation right there.

It's like, she is swayed by how people are nice (and it's not like she's wrong, they are), so this somehow translates into this complexity of thinking about Khomeini. I got nothing against the anti-war message as such, but she's doing it wrong.

It's like, she is swayed by how people are nice (and it's not like she's wrong, they are), so this somehow translates into this complexity of thinking about Khomeini. I got nothing against the anti-war message as such, but she's doing it wrong.

Agreed. Persians are fantastic people, I can't argue with that but she was schmoozed by government minders from an oppressive regime. There's certainly a lot of reasonable debate about possible military action against Iran but posing with the anti-aircraft guns is pretty stupid.

It's like, she is swayed by how people are nice (and it's not like she's wrong, they are), so this somehow translates into this complexity of thinking about Khomeini. I got nothing against the anti-war message as such, but she's doing it wrong.

She got the part right about the Shah being brutal, and then went completely off the rails by relaying the comments praising Khomeini.

Being the definitive event of my generation, I've done a lot of reading on 9/11 and on the physics behind the collapse of the Towers. It wasn't until today, though, that I finally found an article that described the calculation of dynamic load generated by the top section falling onto the floor below. Extremely enlightening when contrasted with the Twoofer assertions that the buildings' safety margins "should've resisted the total collapse."

Just asked my Wife how Michelle looked in that dress. She took one look and said pregnant. Don't ask me why. She basically said it wasn't fat because if it was, it would also be showing up in her face as well. Ladies?

Myself, I thought she looked hot.

You're right and your wife is wrong. It's a stunning dress and she looks great.

Speaking of weirdos in NM, I found out yesterday that the woman across the street thinks Obama is an alien. Not a Kenyan, but some kind of reptilian. Believes a whole lot of other weird stuff too. Fortunately, I didn't have to talk to her to find this out, Mr. w did. And she's moving to California as soon as she can to be closer to her daughter when the world come to an end.